History Headscratchers / MaryPoppins

** Because the moral isn't "don't be serious and grumpy". The moral is "there's a time for work and a time for play, and both should be treated as equally important".

** Also note that it's in the film only. In the book, the thermometer (measuring tape was introduced for the adaptation) shows that Mary is "a very excellent and worthy person, thoroughly reliable in every particular".

** Yes it is. That's the point of the scene. They're greedy men, and they covet every single penny they see.
*** Maybe, but I still think it's stretching plausibility for George. By this point, we've already gotten a good idea of George's character. Heck, he's one of the first characters we meet, and the first song of the movie exists to establish his character. Him being that greedy doesn't gel with the characterization we've already gotten for him. The board of directors, fine. We haven't met them before this scene, and them being that greedy does gel with what we know of them. One might think they'd have something better to do with their time, but other than that, I'll buy it.

*** I disagree. For Banks at least, he didn't care about the tuppence in the Bank, he wanted his children to like him and what he does. (His verse was all about what wonderful things banks do, not about giving the bank money). However, he didn't understand how and couldn't break his shell to understand that he should do child-things with them and was trying to make them do adult-things.

*** In the books it's less lying, and more displaying a mock outrage that effectively quells any remarks the children might make later. Mary knows that remarks like, "And then Mary Poppins took us to the moon!" would raise eyebrows at the least, and more seriously have the children accused of lying (a capital sin for a child in Edwardian London); so she deflects her charges' excitement by dismissing the whole thing as foolish, "Go to the moon? The very idea!" I've noticed Mary never flat out denies what happened, just states that it's very improper. It could be cruel, but was quite effective, leaving the children free for more adventures.

** Absolutely perfect people don't hiccup after taking their r-r-rum punch medicine.

** Maybe it is happening in the minds of the children? But then, what prompts Banks' sudden epiphany?
** Perhaps it was simple BlatantLies on Mary's part. Both as some sort of obscure lesson for the children, and self- (and job) preservation: after all, CHILDREN will tell you they jumped through chalk drawings, rode a carousel that came to life, and the nursery cleaned itself by magic, and adults say "Aw, how cute, they have imaginations." If an adult responsible for said children says "Yep, absolutely, and while they were riding the carousel the local sweep and I were dancing with penguin waiters", at best they might wind up dismissed. At worst, well, early Edwardian mental hospitals weren't the most fun places on Earth to be...

** Further thought: one of the lessons (even the main lesson) she was trying to teach them was that there is a time for fun and a time for seriousness. As part of this, she would encourage their imagination through their outings (whether it was real and done by magic or all in their minds doesn't matter), but by then turning around and saying "What are you talking about? That never happened", she's reminding them that the Mr. Bankses of the world will not look kindly on or accept anything having to do with fun, entertainment, or imagination, even without magic being involved. So it's both a wink and nudge to hint at what really happened and a reminder "this has to be between us, because no one is going to believe you". An encouragement to keep imagining and dreaming, but also pointing out that there's still a realistic side to life from which you have to keep such things separate.

** Maybe she just enjoys trolling people. It's a small character flaw.

** ...and the British love their eccentrics.
* What was Mary Poppins' plan when she proposed the outing to the bank? If she thought the mere act of giving a tuppence to an old lady and feed some birds was going to change Mr. Banks' character completely, she either is too naive or overestimated the influence she had on him, if she *wanted* him to get fired (but then how did she foresee the riot at the bank?) that makes her completely unlikeable. The most probable outcome would have been that Michael was forced to put his money in a bank and Mr. Banks feeling smug about having taught him a life lesson, while Michael's resentment for his father grew. It all seems to come down to a huge BatmanGambit with way too many uncertainties. While she is magical, nothing in the movies or books (correct me if I'm wrong, since I haven't read all of them) suggests that she can tell the future.

** Mary had a twofold goal, and it's in line with what Bert told Jane and Michael in the alley. 1) The kids think their father is a boring fuddy duddy who doesn't really love them but dislikes them at best. By the time they run from the bank they're convinced he doesn't love them let alone like them. 2) Banks knows from Winnie and all the Nannies they've gone through that his children are misbehaving little rapscallions (or just high spirited children of 8 and 7 depending on your point of view) when not in his rightfully strict and regimented presence. But he's ''never seen that for himself''. Mary knows that if they're ever going to mend this family they are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle. So if she suggests feeding the birds, and the children ask -- George will allow it and maybe become a bit softer toward his children being children. If they pass up the bird feeding, the children will see the bank and realize that George is in a cage, just like Bert said. It didn't work out that way precisely, but the reaction was delayed. The children gave back the tuppence in hopes it would make up for their behaviour (which they realized was wrong and got their father in trouble), and seeing the tuppence made George realize his children were just being children, and he was about to be fired for something ''all'' adults, especially those with children of their own, should already know.

*** To go along with this long: it's also the first time the elder Mr. Dawes has ever gotten a joke, so this (for him) is the ''most hilarious thing in the world''--more than enough to put him on the ceiling.

*** ^ I think the issue there is that only Marry Poppins can do magic. There's no use teaching the kids to rely on magic to solve their problems if they're going to lose that magic as soon as she leaves town. So instead she uses magic to teach them good life lessons that will still apply after she's gone.

** Seriously? In a movie with magical nannies and dancing chimney sweepers, that's supposed to be even a question?

*** Note that Dawes Sr. is ''very'' old, and very, very traditionalist himself. It's possible that he's also getting a bit senile, and is still judging how much value tuppence has in 1910 based on how much the same amount was worth back in the mid-18th century.

** While I do agree they are being stupid, remember what happens when they ask Michael how much money he has and he says he has tuppence. Mr. Dawes Sr. hobbles in, saying that was precisely how he himself started. Maybe they see Michael as another link to continue the chain, as George's father himself worked at the bank to. It might not really be about the tuppence but seeing themselves in Michael and wanting to convince him... which makes their stubbornness all the stupider.

*** [[FridgeBrilliance Explains why Mr. Banks was so upset about her not teaching the kids anything useful.]]

** PL Travers (the author) insisted it was set in the Edwardian Era. (pages 254 & 255 in my copy of PL Traver's biography 'Mary Poppins, She Wrote')

** I suppose the least malicious conclusion is that Mary Poppins simply wanted George to take the children ''anywhere'' and spend a prolonged period of time with them. The bank is the easiest and most plausible place to trick him into taking them to.

** Mary had a twofold goal, and it's in line with what Bert told Jane and Michael in the alley. 1- The kids think their father is a boring fuddy duddy who doesn't really love them but dislikes them at best. By the time they run from the bank they're convinced he doesn't love them let alone like them. 2- Banks knows from Winnie and all the Nannies they've gone through that his children are misbehaving little rapscallions (or just high spirited children of 8 and 7 depending on your point of view) when not in his rightfully strict and regimented presence. But he's ''never seen that for himself''. Mary knows that if they're ever going to mend this family they are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle. So if she suggests feeding the birds, and the children ask -- George will allow it and maybe become a bit softer toward his children being children. If they pass up the bird feeding, the children will see the bank and realize that George is in a cage, just like Bert said. It didn't work out that way precisely, but the reaction was delayed. The children gave back the tuppence in hopes it would make up for their behaviour (which they realized was wrong and got their father in trouble), and seeing the tuppence made George realize his children were just being children, and he was about to be fired for something ''all'' adults, especially those with children of their own, should already know.